MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969838974 · doi:10.4102/curationis.v42i1.1954

Resilience of auxiliary nurses providing nursing care to patients with intellectual disabilities at a public mental healthcare institution

2019· article· en· W2969838974 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurationis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersNorth-West University
KeywordsNursingVulnerability (computing)Nonprobability samplingHealth careNursing careIntellectual disabilityPsychologyMental healthPsychological resiliencePopulationFocus groupMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although mental health is regarded by the International Council of Nurses as a very important element of wellness, healthcare to patients with intellectual disabilities still remains neglected and under-resourced in most societies. Auxiliary nurses are crucial in providing nursing care to patients with intellectual disabilities. These nurses may not be prepared to handle challenges in providing nursing care to these patients, but their resilience can help them to manage these challenges. Limited research is available with regard to the resilience of auxiliary nurses providing nursing care to patients with intellectual disabilities. OBJECTIVES: To explore and describe the perceptions of auxiliary nurses providing nursing care to patients with intellectual disabilities on their resilience and protective mechanisms and vulnerability factors that influence their resilience when providing nursing care to these patients. METHOD: A qualitative, descriptive inquiry approach was used. The population comprised approximately 220 auxiliary nurses providing nursing care to patients with intellectual disabilities at a mental healthcare institution. Auxiliary nurses were selected through purposive sampling with the assistance of a mediator. The sample size was determined by data saturation. The data were collected through four focus group interviews with altogether 32 participants. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from the data. Practical wisdom was applied by the participants. They also made use of different forms of interactions, including the application of strategies such as utilising induction programmes and being willing to learn, in order to remain resilient. Protective mechanisms and vulnerability factors influence their resilience. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations to strengthen the resilience of auxiliary nurses caring for patients with intellectual disabilities were formulated from the research findings, including recommendations for nursing practice, education and nursing research. Informal peer support, as well as addressing ethical issues, improving nurse-patient communication, training to handle adverse working conditions, and continuing education and further research on the practical wisdom of auxiliary nurses, is recommended.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it